2003 (5) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant had transferred the property in dispute within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act during the assessment year 1991-92? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and is based on the material not on record?" According to the appellant, in the return he showed a loss of Rs. 26,800 in the business and income from property at Rs. 13,060 together with the income of Rs. 48,010 from interest. According to him, the net taxable income was Rs. 29,270. The Assessing Officer assessed the appellant on an income of Rs. 18,49,835 and an agricultural income of Rs. 30,000. In assessing the income, the capital gain on the sale of plot was assessed at Rs. 18,28,565. The case of the assessee is that he is not liable to be assessed o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessing Officer to compute the capital gain correctly by allowing deduction under sections 54E and 54F of the Act. Against the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal has been preferred before us. We have heard Mr. Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the assessee, and Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the Revenue. Before we proceed further, it is appropriate to rewrite section 2(47) of the Act, thus: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -. . . (47) 'transfer', in relation to a capital asset, includes, - (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or (iv) in a case where the asset is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, the transaction cannot be said to be a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act during the relevant assessment year. To bolster his contention, he has placed heavy reliance on the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 491 (Bom). It has also been put forth by learned counsel for the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Vimal Lalchand Mutha [2001] 248 ITR 6, wherein their Lordships held that the interpretation of the agreement is a question of law. The Tribunal on the basis of the general power of attorney executed by the assessee in favour of M/s. Chandrika Apartment has held that the transaction between the parties is nothing but a transfe....